Missouri has now joined the growing list of states that have passed highly restrictive abortion laws. Below is a story that covers this and below that is my own stance.
Missouri’s Senate has passed a bill that would ban abortions at eight weeks of pregnancy or later, except in cases of medical emergency.
There are no exceptions for rape or incest.
It’s the latest in a series of sweeping abortion restrictions passed by Republican-controlled state Legislatures aimed at pushing abortion challenges to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The measure, which saw a series of changes before passage, will now return to the state House. If approved there, it would head to the desk of Republican Gov. Mike Parson.
“Thanks to the leaders in the House and Senate, we have the opportunity to be one of the strongest pro-life states in the country,” Parson said on Wednesday.
The bill passed the Senate early Thursday morning in a 24-to-10 vote, as NPR member station St. Louis Public Radio reported.
The text states that performing abortions in violation of the measure would be considered a felony. The legislation states that “any person who knowingly performs or induces an abortion of an unborn child in violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a class B felony, as well as subject to suspension or revocation of his or her professional license.” Women who receive abortions would not be prosecuted.
Prior to the Missouri vote, Republican state Sen. Bob Onder said, “The time for negotiations is over. Every provision of the Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act … is a provision that would protect innocent human life, protect pregnancy care centers and ensure that they get the resources they need to perform their valuable mission, and measures to protect the health and safety of Missouri women.”
Some Missouri Senate Democrats spoke out against what has been called an “extreme” bill.
“This language four years ago would be unthinkable. But elections have consequences,” state Sen. Lauren Arthur said, according to the member station. “And with new Supreme Court justices, there is a renewed attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. And with that, there is a push in this Legislature to pass what I would characterize as very extreme legislation.”
WHERE I STAND…..
As those who are frequent readers of my work know, I am “pro-life” which means all life, including the welfare of the woman carrying the baby. My standard is that abortion should not be only the woman’s decision AFTER the fetus has passed a threshold of viability outside of the uterus and is distinctly human (as measured primarily by the EEG which identifies brain wave patterns). As a result I support efforts to require additional review of the decision and grounds for a late decision after 20 weeks. 24 weeks marks the point of viability outside the uterus as a norm. 20 has become the marker for distinctive human life. My position usually upsets people on both sides of the question.
Murph, how do you feel about the death penalty? I find it very troublesome when most of these people are for the death penalty and war hawks. They are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion. If people think it is not ok to kill a baby, how do they justify war or the death penalty? No government should be inside my bedroom making my decisions. Personally, I never saw the need to make that choice, but that does not give me the right to make the decision for other women. Quite honestly, what if we pass a law that men have to be sterilized after the first child they leave for the mother to raise alone? I know the men passing these laws certainly don’t think it ok.
Sue, that’s such a central point that I think does a great job in exposing that “pro-life” Republicans are just using this flawed and conditional pro-life campaign as cover for their real agenda.
Pro-life for embryos and fetuses but not pro-life for existing children getting shot in schools or as you say, not for people given the death penalty and not against wars that kill many born and unborn innocents. So if they aren’t really about “pro-life”, why do they pound that drum?
The goal is just power, plain and simple. Trying to give their religious cult power over the people and government, giving men power over women and themselves power over the majority.
Their position is indefensible because it only applies this alleged belief in the way that is most manipulative.
Ignore my email about being unable to log in – evidently it had to do with some kind of glitch when I clicked on one of my emails – all’s well now, but I WAS unable to open the “letter. opie/Cat
I saw your comment so I didn’t reply to your email since all seemed fine, glad it is and very happy to see you here at The Planet!
The problem with that emailed link is that it came from the test area and the article isn’t available to view. So you did everything right, it’s the glitch in the test site that messed things up.
Murph, I appreciate your sharing your POV on this issue. As you said, people can get very upset when they hear an opinion on abortion with which they disagree.
I do disagree with you a little on this but we primarily agree.
It seems to me that the root of this religion-based fervor to strip women of choices over their own bodies is rooted in chauvinism. It is always so-called “Christian” men who dominate the push to outlaw abortion and “Christian” men who oppose equal rights and equal pay for women.
This appears based on one central theory of the RW “Christians”, women should be subservient to men. Women should be a vessel for men to have babies and vessels don’t get to choose what they’re used for.
No one despises the concept of feminism and women’s rights more than “Christian” men. There are the RW women who march lockstep with the men in supporting their domination of women but IMO, they come across more like brainwashed cult members.
What is unnerving is to see how the Republican state governments have all been conspiring together to try and stab women’s rights in the heart simultaneously and in an orchestrated assault.
No wonder Republicans in Congress voted against renewing the Violence Against Women Act, it conflicted with their plans.
ACTUALLY…..We agree completely on this. I chose not to analyze their motivation….but rather the essence of the legislation. Their motivations are craven and base I believe….just as you say. This is moral bankruptcy at its worst.
I do think we agree on nearly all of this though I don’t think government should have rights over a woman’s body in any case.
The way it looks to me, there is only one actual person involved in the situation de facto, the woman who is pregnant, so government has no right to decide for her at 20 weeks or later, if she should remain pregnant. That is her body, not the government’s and aside from these asinine new laws which we both agree are outrageous, an embryo or a fetus are not “persons” who are separate from the woman, they are part of her. There is no “person” for government to represent and extremist laws trying to declare a fertilized egg a person won’t stand.
The facts are that the majority of abortions, over 90%, happen in the first trimester anyway so late term abortion is not a pervasive problem, it is rare (only 1.4% occur after 21 weeks).
https://www.vox.com/2019/5/16/18628002/abortion-ohio-alabama-georgia-law-bill-details
And I think the woman is in the most pertinent position to make a decision to go ahead or not with her own pregnancy.
There are many unfortunate ongoing instances of women losing their pregnancy unwillingly after 21 weeks too so just because a fetus may be officially determined viable at an approximate point, it doesn’t mean all fetuses at that same point are viable or will be born. So how can they be “persons” when they’ve never been born, right?
Which brings me back to the motivations as to why these laws are pushed so aggressively by “Christian” men in power. They want to re-establish dominance over women and resent their independence.
I think you’d agree that these hypocrites don’t really care about “life”, they are happy with arming the country for mass murder on a regular basis, they oppose health care to keep babies alive after they’re born or government helping those same babies they want to legislate into existence, with having sufficient food or living in a safe non-cancerous environment.
Which is why I focus on their hidden motivations. Anti-abortion is not really about life, it’s about that segment of phony “Christian” men and cult-like women betraying most women, who are insecure, prejudiced and liars, wanting to use the power of the state to enforce their cultish beliefs.
Only 18% of the nation supports banning abortion:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Stealing away these rights are not supported by the majority of the American people, let alone a vast majority of American women. I doubt these laws will accomplish their goals in the end but they are unleashing a new momentum among women to confront and take down these chauvinists and their party of oppression, the GOP.
In Roe v. Wade the Burger Court weighed the rights of a woman to control her body as an outgrowth of the constitutional right of privacy but that there were limitations that could be imposed on this by states. For example: At the level of medical science available in the early 1970s, the beginning of the third trimester was normally considered to be the point at which a fetus became viable. Therefore, the Court ruled that, from the beginning of the third trimester on through the rest of a pregnancy, the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, and could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother’s life or health.
The SCOTUS has made many rulings that have proven to be flawed and rejected later in history.
The problem with Roe is also a problem with the Constitution which didn’t properly deal with the issue of white male domination over black people, women, etc. So the Burger Court used the right to privacy to actually address the issue of equality and self-determination. It’s imperfect but most Americans are grateful Roe was decided the way it was.
They used the tools they had to right a wrong but the wrong is not as much about taking away a woman’s privacy as it is about government claiming sovereignty over women, reducing them to a dominated, lower class of citizen.
Perhaps if the ERA ever passed, the SCOTUS would have another constitutional tool (or obstacle, in the case of anti-abortion conservatives on the SCOTUS).
As it is, we’re following determinations by the Burger SCOTUS on states rights over abortion which clearly is not working today anyway.
This may be a little tangent but calling back to another proposition of mine, if The Roberts Court guts or destroys Roe, it will be a massive argument to support a Dem Congress and President in 2021, expanding the SCOTUS to dilute the power of the extremists that shouldn’t be there in the first place and solidify support for Roe, the VRA, overturning Citizens United and gerrymandering and more.